http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1585-1587 of 2008

PETITIONER:

Workmen Employed Under IT Shramik Sena

RESPONDENT:

M/s Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2008

BENCH:

TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NOS 1585-1587 OF 2008

[ Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.1072-1074 of 2008 ]

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an interim order passed by

a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in

Letters Patent Appeal No.177 of 2007 with Civil Application

No.303 of 2007 in Civil Application Nos.1916 and 1554 of 2007 in

Writ Petition No.3079 of 2006. By the impugned order, the

Division Bench of the High Court had modified an interim order

passed by a learned single Judge, which was as follows: -

"[i] As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen

instead of paying dues u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,

the workmen shall be paid wages at par with unskilled

permanent workmen or the statutory minimum wages

whichever is higher, from the date of this order.

[ii] If no work is provided to the workmen by the employer,

they shall be paid wages @ Rs.2,500/- per month.

[iii] These wages shall be paid by the employer and

accepted by the workmen without prejudice to their rights and

contentions in the petition.

[iv] The arrears payable to the workmen on account of non-

payment of wages @ Rs.2500/- per month, when work was

not provided to them, after the order of this Court dated

29.8.2006, shall be paid within a period of four weeks from

today."

3. This interim order of the learned single Judge was taken in

appeal by the Management before the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay. The Division Bench disposed of that appeal by keeping the

interim direction Nos. 2 to 4 intact but so far as the interim direction

No. 1 was concerned, it was moulded as follows: -

"As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen

instead of paying dues u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,

the workmen shall be paid last drawn wages or the statutory

minimum wages whichever is higher, from the date of this

order."

As noted herein earlier, these special leave petitions have been filed

against the aforesaid modified interim order of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and examined the two interim orders passed by the learned single

judge and the Division Bench. Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

counsel appearing for the respondent submitted on instruction that

the management had never agreed to reinstate the workmen and

therefore, the question of calling the workmen to work in the

company during the pendency of the writ petition shall not arise at

all. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, however, submitted

that since the management is not willing to reinstate the workmen,

they should be paid in compliance with the interim direction No.4

made by the learned single judge, which has been affirmed by the

Division Bench of the High Court, that is to say, when no work was

provided to the workmen, the workmen shall be paid wages @ Rs.

2500/- per month till the disposal of the writ petition. Such being the

stand taken by the parties before us, we dispose of these appeals

with the following directions: -

i) The management shall not call the workmen/appellant

for work in the company and therefore, the

workmen/appellant shall have no obligation to join the

company for work but, during the pendency of the writ

petition, the management shall go on paying wages @ Rs.

2500/- per month.

ii) The High Court is requested to dispose of the pending

writ petition at an early date preferably within 4 months from

the date of supply of a copy of this order.

5. These appeals are thus disposed of with no order as to costs.